Let data grow from marijuana reclassification

The proposed move to recategorize marijuana by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration sounds at first like a minor bookkeeping matter. But in our nationwide pot debate, it may prove to be one of major significance.

The DEA wants to shift the controversial drug from the Schedule I category — where it’s been since 1970 along with heroin and cocaine — and put it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act, where drugs like codeine are found. The long-awaited plan faces review by the White House Office of Management and Budget, as well as public comment. It should be approved for many good reasons, though with some reservations.

Marijuana should never have been in the same basket as far more addictive controlled substances like heroin and cocaine. That decision was a remnant of the “Reefer Madness” hysteria surrounding pot from the late 1960s, when police raids of kids smoking a few joints were common.

  At some point, as with everything else, we found a way to get taxable revenue from it, just like gambling which is now part of the mainstream. Over time, American society decided to decriminalize marijuana use. In the past decade, laws have changed in many states, including New York. Though federal charges for marijuana use are rare these days, this proposed DEA change is important to our overall view of the drug.

Most significantly, federal recategorization of marijuana would open up the study of its long-term use and health consequences. Academic researchers and medical professionals have refrained for decades from doing so because of its Category I criminal status. Conducting studies with an illegal drug carried too many legal restrictions with serious ramifications. As a result, there is “scant evidence and only anecdotes about [marijuana’s] long-term use,” says addiction expert Jeffrey Reynolds, head of the Family and Children’s Association in Garden City.

If approved, recategorization should prompt federal health officials to consider funding large-scale longitudinal studies that will give us vital information about marijuana's impacts — good or bad — on our bodies. Does medical marijuana help physical and psychological problems as claimed and should it be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration like other drugs? How does inhaling pot without a filter compare to cigarettes and what is its impact on our lungs and other organs after years of use? These are questions that desperately need answers in our overall debate.

Other considerations with changing marijuana’s legal status include financial concerns. The fledgling cannabis industry has long complained of banking restrictions involving money from marijuana sales because of the drug's illegal DEA status nationally. The proposed change would allow these businesses to deduct certain expenses from their tax bills in the same way other merchants can.

Getting marijuana mostly out of the criminal world is a good thing. Hopefully, this redefinition of its legal status will also lead to a better understanding of its overall risks.